Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[Let's Read] Dungeons & Dragons Basic Rules, by Tom Moldvay
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Iosue" data-source="post: 6608105" data-attributes="member: 6680772"><p>What player side mechanics are they engaging? I mean, sure, they can always make sure that the high-CHA guy does the talking, but resolution is in the hands of the DM.</p><p></p><p></p><p>The distinction is that in a skill-based system, the player chooses what social skills the character will be good at, which are then represented by a mechanic, and <em>generally</em> though no universally, this mechanic is instigated by the player. E.g., by narrating or role-playing a lie in order to instigate the Bluff resolution mechanic (if not outright saying, "I will use Bluff to convince him of X".</p><p></p><p>To look at it another way, we could conceivably turn the reaction roll into a player side mechanic. Each player can decide when they want a reaction roll, based on their actions, rolling 2d6 and adding their CHA bonus. That's pretty easy and straightforward, and in fact just the kind of thing that gave rise to skill systems in the first place. OTOH, what if we black boxed, say, 5e's skill system? Even just the social skills. Then the DM needs to keep track of Insight, Persuasion, Deception, Intimidation and Performance, and the mixes of WIS and CHA bonuses and proficiencies for each character. That's a heck of a lot of work on the DM now. Much easier to just forgo the distinct skills and just use CHA bonuses, if any.</p><p></p><p></p><p>It might not involve CHA at all, in Moldvay Basic. The reaction table is a tool, and certainly in my personal games I make heavy use of it for almost all interactions. But Moldvay explicitly calls it out as optional (with the possible exception of Retainer Reactions to initial offers):</p><p></p><p></p><p>So again, a DM side <em>tool</em>, rather than a player side mechanic for interaction with the game.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>"As they see fit," implies to me a lack of arbitrariness, and in fact points to "adjudicating things in a way that makes sense, given the fiction." So I suspect you and Wangalade are probably closer together on this than it might appear at first glance. "At their whim," OTOH, would imply an arbitrariness that would lead to bad experiences, but "as they see fit" and "at their whim" are two distinct attitudes, IMO.</p><p></p><p></p><p></p><p>Yes, but this thread, or at least my posts in it, is about the written rules, and exploring the kind of game they describe, not the variations that people played throughout the 80s. And in those rules, it is impossible to "build" for high-CHA unless you happen to roll high on your last ability score roll. CHA cannot be adjusted during character generation because it is not a prime requisite. There are no magic items in either Moldvay Basic or Cook Expert that increase CHA. A character who happens to get a high CHA receives some static bonuses in the game, which are difficult to leverage in substantially greater ways than characters with average CHA.</p><p></p><p><strong>Edit:</strong> To expand further on that, an 18 (and only an 18) gives you a +2 bonus to reaction rolls. That is enough to move the result one level over, but it cannot turn a bad reaction roll into a good one. If you roll a 3, 6, or 9, it has no effect at all. Played RAW, most PCs that have a bonus are going to have a +1 bonus, enough to turn "Immediate Attack" to "Hostile, possible attack", but otherwise only somewhat effective.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Iosue, post: 6608105, member: 6680772"] What player side mechanics are they engaging? I mean, sure, they can always make sure that the high-CHA guy does the talking, but resolution is in the hands of the DM. The distinction is that in a skill-based system, the player chooses what social skills the character will be good at, which are then represented by a mechanic, and [I]generally[/I] though no universally, this mechanic is instigated by the player. E.g., by narrating or role-playing a lie in order to instigate the Bluff resolution mechanic (if not outright saying, "I will use Bluff to convince him of X". To look at it another way, we could conceivably turn the reaction roll into a player side mechanic. Each player can decide when they want a reaction roll, based on their actions, rolling 2d6 and adding their CHA bonus. That's pretty easy and straightforward, and in fact just the kind of thing that gave rise to skill systems in the first place. OTOH, what if we black boxed, say, 5e's skill system? Even just the social skills. Then the DM needs to keep track of Insight, Persuasion, Deception, Intimidation and Performance, and the mixes of WIS and CHA bonuses and proficiencies for each character. That's a heck of a lot of work on the DM now. Much easier to just forgo the distinct skills and just use CHA bonuses, if any. It might not involve CHA at all, in Moldvay Basic. The reaction table is a tool, and certainly in my personal games I make heavy use of it for almost all interactions. But Moldvay explicitly calls it out as optional (with the possible exception of Retainer Reactions to initial offers): So again, a DM side [I]tool[/I], rather than a player side mechanic for interaction with the game. "As they see fit," implies to me a lack of arbitrariness, and in fact points to "adjudicating things in a way that makes sense, given the fiction." So I suspect you and Wangalade are probably closer together on this than it might appear at first glance. "At their whim," OTOH, would imply an arbitrariness that would lead to bad experiences, but "as they see fit" and "at their whim" are two distinct attitudes, IMO. Yes, but this thread, or at least my posts in it, is about the written rules, and exploring the kind of game they describe, not the variations that people played throughout the 80s. And in those rules, it is impossible to "build" for high-CHA unless you happen to roll high on your last ability score roll. CHA cannot be adjusted during character generation because it is not a prime requisite. There are no magic items in either Moldvay Basic or Cook Expert that increase CHA. A character who happens to get a high CHA receives some static bonuses in the game, which are difficult to leverage in substantially greater ways than characters with average CHA. [b]Edit:[/b] To expand further on that, an 18 (and only an 18) gives you a +2 bonus to reaction rolls. That is enough to move the result one level over, but it cannot turn a bad reaction roll into a good one. If you roll a 3, 6, or 9, it has no effect at all. Played RAW, most PCs that have a bonus are going to have a +1 bonus, enough to turn "Immediate Attack" to "Hostile, possible attack", but otherwise only somewhat effective. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
[Let's Read] Dungeons & Dragons Basic Rules, by Tom Moldvay
Top